I made beans on toast. Look! I took pictures of the can, the packet of bread, the bread half out of the packet, the saucepan, the beans about to be poured into the saucepan, the beans being poured into the saucepan, the beans in the saucepan, me turning the gas on, the beans being cooked, the beans being poured onto the bread... I'm actually not hungry, but if I don't eat the beans, I can't get photos of me eating it, the empty plate and the plate in the process of being washed up. Oh wait, I didn't take the pictures in black and white. Now I have to start all over again...

I personally hate this. I know photoshopping is common place in the photo industry and, for some photos it is necessary, for example, a fashion shoot. But for something like nature photography, which I love, for me the whole point is to photograph something natural and real, showcase the brilliance of nature as it is, plan and be lucky enough to get the perfect shot. I don't see the point if you're just going to photoshop it afterwards, even if only a little - it just feels like a lie and, it may be harder to get perfect shots without photoshop, but it's a better test of skill and opportunity to develop skills. I personally will never photoshop a photo and I know there are a handful of professional photographers that have made the same pledge.

I agree with 51. If your purpose is to capture the raw beauty of nature, shouldn't it be unedited? That's just my opinion.

I think nature should be natural and not photoshopped

Well sometimes in the case of landscape photography, I use polarizing filters, it just brings out the color in everything and takes out the glare. Or sometimes when I take a picture of a moving body of water, i.e. rivers, I use long shutter speeds and high apertures to give the water that creamy look.

I have to agree with doodlecloud there. Natural is always best. If it is not thoroughly necessary to edit your image, then don't. However, there are times at which you shoot something, and it's kind of a spur-of-the-moment, blink-of-an-eye decision, and the photo comes out looking like hairy armpits, and it may serve the shooter well to do some rudimentary editing. Otherwise, you can simply adjust ISO, aperture, and shutter speed until your image is desirable.

I don't mean replacing aspects of the picture or changing colours when I use the word "photoshop". Every professional will use some post-processing, however minimal. It's part of the creative process and it's what makes photography an art. If there was no post-processing, you would get people going to the same places and taking very similar shots. The true photographer is responsible for transmitting his ideas through his photography by, for example, cropping, changing colour saturation and curves, removing glare, etc. Regardless, the quality of an image is undisputedly created at the moment of shooting. A good photograph, edited or not, is usually the product of a competent photographer, technique-wise, and satisfactory equipment.

The truth is, none of these images you see on National Geographic and other similarly amazing photography magazines are straight out of the camera. No matter how great your equipment is or how good you are, it will never produce a perfect image like that. Editing colour curves is essential to guarantee proper printing quality, for example, and that can be done in photoshop and other similar softwares, hence, it is "photoshopped". The problem is that "photoshopping" has received a pejorative meaning, when in fact it should be a great thing since it is a tool which enhances one's images.

In a way, I see your point, but I think such works should at least be referred to as mixed media as opposed to pure photography. Afterwards all, someone may think it's okay to get rid of a little shadow here or there but where do you draw the line before a photo is butchered?

Well, considering photography started in the darkroom, where pretty much anything you do to the image will affect its contrast, exposure or content, would you say that is manipulating the image as well? Post-processing has always been a part of photography, historically, it shouldn't have its name changed simply because of a switch from analogue to digital technology.